A rare policy victory for Yvonne and her NIMBY minions. Unfortunately for her, more parking lots and young tech professionals are continuing to move into JC, to the extent that her and the NA are generally having much less of an influence over policy.

I really don't care one way or the other about the statue itself, but I'm saddened by the victory of the "never change ANYTHING!!" forces. Whether it's this, Serra's Tilted Arc sculpture or graffiti on a Queens warehouse building, the expectation that public art is permanent will bode ill for anyone allowing art in public or private in the future. I actually have a wall that would look good with a mural, but I'd never allow it on my property if it meant I could never, ever change my mind.

It was the second time Mayor Steve Fulop’s now-scuttled plan to relocate the monument kept council members on the dais past midnight: a hearing at their June 13 meeting did not end until nearly 3 a.m. City officials were exhausted when the statue discussion began early Thursday, six hours after the council meeting began, and their frustration showed.

Judge Peter Bariso's Nov. 16 decision ends a lawsuit filed last month by an administration critic who alleged the ordinance was void because the city made improper changes to it before the council voted to adopt it.

"[After the motion failed] Over the course of the next few hours, there was a flurry of side conversations between council members and city officials, with some exchanging texts with an absent Fulop. At about 10 p.m., Fulop ally Councilman Daniel Rivera announced a deal: the council would re-consider adding an item to the agenda that would rescind the June 13 ordinance that authorized moving the statue, only this time there would be an amendment saying the statue would stay at Exchange Place "in perpetuity." That provision was enough to secure Boggiano's vote, the sixth needed to add the item to the agenda.

The council then took four votes: to reconsider voting on adding the item; to add the item to the agenda; to amend the item to include the "in perpetuity" language; and to introduce the ordinance. All four motions passed. A final vote on the measure could come as early as Nov. 20."

I was surprised the city council had a backbone last night and did not vote introduce the city ordinance repealing the removal of the Katyn monument. Because there was nothing in the language that stopped the administration from re-introducing this later. Since it was a last minute introduction, the ordinance needed 6 votes and only received 5. So it failed. The members of the city council said this was not fair to the Polish people, they did the required worked of gathering signatures so either they get their election in December or the city drops their claim. Dropping it without guarantees from the Fulop that he would not start this later bothered some of the council members.

JERSEY CITY — The Fulop administration is backing off its planned relocation of the Katyn monument in an effort to halt an expected delay in a new payroll tax, according to an email obtained by The Jersey Journal.

Mayor Steve Fulop sent council members an email on Tuesday telling them his administration would ask them to introduce an ordinance Wednesday that would rescind its June 13 ordinance that authorized moving the monument from Exchange Place to York Street.

Fulop and his council allies had previously made the decision to let voters decide via a Dec. 11 referendum whether to approve the planned relocation, but the mayor told council members in his email he's worried that the same petition drive used to try to reverse the council's Katyn ordinance would be used to stop implementation of the payroll tax, a 1 percent business tax intended to help fund the local school district.

JCvoter wrote:The core issue here is who gets to dictate the nature of our public spaces - the developers, in league with our mayor, or the people of Jersey City.

The Exchange Place SID was created by Fulop and Candice Osborne at the behest of Mack Cali and is now controlled by Mack Cali, SJP Properties and Hartz Mountain. All of these companies own property adjacent to plaza where the statue resides. This axis of mediocrity was the sole impetus behind the attempted removal of the statue.

JCvoter wrote:The core issue here is who gets to dictate the nature of our public spaces - the developers, in league with our mayor, or the people of Jersey City.

The Exchange Place SID was created by Fulop and Candice Osborne at the behest of Mack Cali and is now controlled by Mack Cali, SJP Properties and Hartz Mountain. All of these companies own property adjacent to plaza where the statue resides. This axis of mediocrity was the sole impetus behind the attempted removal of the statue.

The weird thing is that this topic predates the mayor saying he would move it. At least on this forum, it seems to be that it was split, leaning towards moving it - and getting two parks in exchange definitely tilted the balance towards moving it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this measure defeated in a vote though - since there's probably more people that don't care vs. people that seem to be super adamant against it (and not that many I'd think are strongly in favor of moving it).

And generally, in a representative democracy, we vote for elected officials to dictate these things - so yes, the mayor/city council (supposedly representing the "will of the people" and whatnot)

The core issue here is who gets to dictate the nature of our public spaces - the developers, in league with our mayor, or the people of Jersey City.

The Exchange Place SID was created by Fulop and Candice Osborne at the behest of Mack Cali and is now controlled by Mack Cali, SJP Properties and Hartz Mountain. All of these companies own property adjacent to plaza where the statue resides. This axis of mediocrity was the sole impetus behind the attempted removal of the statue.

I understand it perfectly. I read the beginning of the thread - it is all about how this monument "ruins the skyline", and so on.

So, it's all about moving it to a less prominent location, where it doesn't "ruin" your self-enjoyment.

The statue is located in a busy commercial and recreational plaza where it stands every chance of being treated dismissively, which is not very respectful to the memory of the victims. I think it deserves better--a place where it can be more appropriately contemplated--but who is anyone to argue with your perfect understanding?

borisp wrote:Well, if the other space is just as prominent, let's leave monument where it is - and whatever we planned to replace it with goes into that "other space" instead.

win-win.

You don't understand the issue, do you?

I understand it perfectly. I read the beginning of the thread - it is all about how this monument "ruins the skyline", and so on.

So, it's all about moving it to a less prominent location, where it doesn't "ruin" your self-enjoyment.

The original purpose was to create a large park in the area where it is and move it over a street. Seems like a no-brainer, but of course it's become much more complicated than that now that people pulled out their pitchforks and picked sides.